The Places of Worship Act 1991: Allahabad HC Says 1991 Suit Not Barred by Law

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Why in News?
• What does the Places of Worship Act 1991 Say?
• Background in which the Recent Allahabad HC Order Came
• What are the Claims in the 1991 Petition?
• What are the Counterclaims?
• What does the Allahabad HC Order Say?

Why in News?

• The Allahabad HC dismissed five petitions by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Gyanvapi mosque committee, holding that a suit filed in 1991 over the Varanasi Mosque is not barred under provisions of the Places of Worship Act.
• The case will now be heard by the Varanasi Civil Judge’s court, which has been directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the proceedings within six months.

What does the Places of Worship Act 1991 Say?

• The Act was brought in by the then govt led by P V Narasimha Rao during the height of the Ram temple movement,
• It mandates that the nature of all places of worship, except the one in Ayodhya that was then under litigation, shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947.
  • Therefore, it is an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15th August, 1947.
• It was also meant to apply to the disputed Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple-Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura.
• Even the Supreme Court, in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case (2019), had underlined that the Act is “a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values”.

Background in which the Recent Allahabad HC Order Came

• The HC order came on five petitions filed by the Gyanvapi mosque committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board.
• The petitions said that the original suit (Ancient Idol of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar vs. Anjuman Intezamia Masajid) filed in 1991 was not maintainable as it was barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
• In 2018, the SC ruled that interim orders of stay given by courts other than the SC shall be automatically removed after six months unless properly extended.
  • The decision was made to ensure that criminal and civil trials are not unreasonably delayed as a result of an indefinite stay.
• Since multiple instances of miscarriage of justice have been observed when the stay is automatically dismissed, this judgment is currently being examined by a larger five-judge Bench.
• Relying on this 2018 verdict, the Hindu side argued that the stay was not in operation and that the case must be heard again. This was challenged by the Muslim side before the HC. 

What are the Claims in the 1991 Petition?

• The 1991 suit seeks an order that the “structure” (mosque) on top of the cellars (taikhana), the adjoining part of the “old temple” of Lord Vishweshwar, are the property of Lord Visheshwar and devotees.
• Claiming that the Muslim community had illegally occupied the property, the plea said that Hindus have every right to use it as a place of worship and to renovate and reconstruct their temple.
• The 1991 suit had also asked the court to pass an order directing the defendants (Waqf Board and Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee) “to remove its effects” from the said property.

What are the Counterclaims?

• The petitioners have every right to offer their prayer in the temple in question and are neither debarred nor anybody has stopped them from performing religious rites inside the temple.
• The Places of Worship Act 1991 was promulgated with the purpose to foreclose any controversy in respect of any places of worship.
• As the Gyanvapi Mosque has been used by Muslims to offer Namaz since 15th August 1947, religious character cannot change.

What the Allahabad HC Order Says?

• The HC directed the Varanasi court to conclude the hearing in the original suit within six months.
• The Court below shall not grant unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case adjournment is granted, it will be at heavy cost.
• Either the Gyanvapi Compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character and that it can’t have dual character at the same time.
• The Places of Worship Act 1991 only bars conversion of place of worship, but it does not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of a place of worship that existed on 15.08.1947.
• As the scientific survey is already being conducted by ASI, it is hereby directed that ASI shall submit the same report.
• In case further survey is required, the Court below shall issue necessary directions to carry out such a survey.

Source: Gyanvapi case: Allahabad HC orders speedy trial, says 1991 suit not barred by law| TH